|
October 02, 2008
Who chose choice, and whose choice is chosen?
While I'm waiting for the Palin-Biden debate to start, I figured I might as well address the urgent issue of Sarah Palin's gay friend. Normally, this wouldn't be such a big deal, but as Governor Palin is being spun as a major homo-hatin', bible-totin' bigot, I guess it comes as a surprise to some that she would have a gay friend. Not just as any old gay friend, but someone who according to Palin is "one of my best friends." "Funny that she and John McCain get so little credit from the gay community for what have actually been quite progressive attitudes," remarked Glenn Reynolds when he linked the above. Added Gay Patriot, While I disagree with the Alaska Governor's contention that her friend "made a choice" to be gay, I'm pleased that we have yet another piece of video showing Palin saying that she doesn't judge people because they are gay. She has remained friends with a woman even after learning of her lesbianism.I don't mean to quibble here, but I watched the video of the interview carefully, and I don't think Sarah Palin said her friend made the choice to be gay. What she said was that her friend ("one of my best friends") "made a choice that isn't a choice I would have made." I think it's fair to infer from the context that she refers to her friend's lifestyle choice, but does that necessarily mean her sexuality itself? These are not synonymous. As even the most committed ideologically driven activists will admit, human sexuality - regardless of whether it is innate, learned, or predetermined at birth - does not always dictate or guarantee that a person will live a certain way. There are celibate heterosexuals, celibate homosexuals, celibate bisexuals, just as there are varying levels of active sexual behavior. Not all people express their sexuality, much less in the manner that they might ultimately prefer in their heart of hearts. There are people who would prefer homosexual relations to heterosexual relations but engage in heterosexual relations, usually because they don't want to face the social stigma associated with homosexuality. Typically, these people are called "closeted." I'm sure there are people who prefer children to adults (or animals to people) but settle for sex with adult humans because they don't want to face the consequences of doing what they'd really prefer. (Much as I disapprove of sex with children or animals, this is not intended as a moral judgment; only an observation about human nature.) As to whether a person's sexuality is a choice, it gets a bit more complicated. I have never been able to understand how anyone can be certain about the exact nature of mechanism inside that most personal area of another human being's mind - the area responsible for what we call human sexuality. But what tends to happen in the political debate is that a large number of activists on one side insist that "homosexuality" is a choice, while a large number of activists on the other insist that "it" is not. Aren't they being a bit presumptuous about individuals who are, after all, total strangers? How can anyone know for sure whether a person "chose" his sexuality other than that particular individual? In this respect, I think President Bush's answer to Bob Schieffer during the 2004 debate was a lot smarter than he was given credit for: SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here.If we return to the example of the closeted homosexual, few would argue that being in the closet is not a choice. And if being celibate or being in the closet is a choice, then deciding to have sex or come out is also a choice. But as to a person's innermost sexual orientation and desires, how anyone can know whether that is a choice except the individual? Yet people on both "sides" claim to know what is going on in the minds of total strangers, and of course the arguments go in circles. I'm not sure why this matters so much to so many people, but it does. I mean, there's still a right to choice, isn't there? posted by Eric on 10.02.08 at 08:54 PM |
|
October 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2008
September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
No rules for those who make them!
Barack Obama could easily clear this up! "Get control of their money and use it against them." Too Risque - Needs A Coverup A New Sigma What Makes Him Qualified? Time to replay a golden oldie Save Michigan "If you want the economy to recover, vote for Obama." "Oh my God! A real Joe Sixpack in our midst!"
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I have a strange theory about sexuality that is backed up by no science whatsoever.
It is that we start out as bisexual or nonsexual as zygotes. Then, the environment of the womb, full of hormones and chemicals (which are not in the control of the mother) encourages an innate sexuality probability to one side of the bisexual middle.
The mix of hormones will mostly induce an innate preference in females for males and in males for females. This in varying degrees, but evolutionarily required.
I think it very rare, the individual who has ZERO sexual interest in their own sex.
Equally rare are those who have no preference at all - man or woman, sex is sex (and I find this the only disturbing possibility, though not sure why)
Because sexuality is an evolutionary trait (I believe) the majority will always be heterosexual. If that were not the case it would not be the cultural norm over so many years.
I'd like to add that if (big if, because it really isn't known) Sarah Palin thinks homosexuality is a choice, the fact that people presumably making that choice doesn't bother her is maybe even an extra tolerance and diversity brownie point for her.